This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Miller, A. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Conceptual Matching Models and Interactional Research in Education

University of New Brunswick

Abstract

In recent years, considerable attention has focused on student-environment interactions in classroom settings. Numerous attempts have been made to depict the processes involved, often in terms of attribute-treatment interactions (ATI’s). Opinions differ about the net result of these efforts. On the one hand, there are those who note that few ATI’s have been reliably demonstrated, and point to inadequacies in both the theory and method being used. In contrast, there is a body of opinion which asserts that adequate theory and method already exist, within the framework of Conceptual Systems Theory (CST), and that there is sufficient empirical evidence to support this view. The purpose of this paper is to evaluate the latter contention by undertaking a critical evaluation of both the theory and the educational research carried out within its framework. A number of theoretical problems are raised which, however, do not appear to detract from the overall framework but merely point to areas that need development and to pitfalls that can be avoided by the prospective researcher. An evaluation of experimental design issues leads to the development of an index of design adequacy which is used to rank studies. The majority of studies reviewed exhibit numerous design problems with a reasonable degree of adequacy being apparent only in a small group of "superior" studies. Thus, the consistent support afforded theoretical expectations by the majority of studies needs to be viewed with caution, although greater confidence can be placed in the substantial support for the matching model provided by the better studies. It is noted that the Conceptual System matching model has yet to be adequately tested under genuinely pedagogic conditions and that this is especially true of the developmental match. The paper ends with a discussion of the theoretical and practical issues that face the researcher who may wish to undertake such a test, and it is concluded that the theory offers a promising framework for interactional research in education.

Review of Educational Research, Vol. 51, No. 1, 33-84 (1981)
DOI: 10.3102/00346543051001033


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				B. Morgan and V. Foster Career Counseling for Reentry Dual Career Women: A Cognitive Developmental Approach Journal of Career Development, January 1, 1999; 26(2): 125 - 136. [PDF]

				V. E. Snider Learning Styles and Learning to Read: A Critique Remedial and Special Education, January 1, 1992; 13(1): 6 - 18. [Abstract] [PDF]

				G. D. Walters Predicting the Disciplinary Adjustment of Maximum and Minimum Security Prison Inmates Using the Lifestyle Criminality Screening Form Int J Offender Ther Comp Criminol, March 1, 1991; 35(1): 63 - 71. [Abstract]

				M. REITSMA-STREET and A. W. LESCHIED The Conceptual-Level Matching Model in Corrections Criminal Justice and Behavior, March 1, 1988; 15(1): 92 - 108. [Abstract]

				P. VAN VOORHIS A Cross Classification of Five Offender Typologies: Issues of Construct and Predictive Validity Criminal Justice and Behavior, March 1, 1988; 15(1): 109 - 124. [Abstract]

				L. Thies-Sprinthall A Collaborative Approach for Mentor Training: A Working Model Journal of Teacher Education, December 1, 1986; 37(6): 13 - 20. [Abstract]

				M. H. Dembo, M. Sweitzer, and P. Lauritzen An Evaluation of Group Parent Education: Behavioral, PET, and Adlerian Programs Review of Educational Research, January 1, 1985; 55(2): 155 - 200. [Abstract] [PDF]